FCC chair: ISPs should be able to charge Netflix for Internet fast lane

Newly anointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler said this week that it would be OK for Internet service providers to charge Netflix and other companies for a faster lane to consumers.

Wheeler's stance is surprising given that it appears to contradict the FCC's Open Internet Order, passed under his predecessor in 2010. That order, which sets out the country's network neutrality rules, says that fixed broadband providers may not "unreasonably discriminate" against any type of traffic. The order specifically calls out pay-for-play arrangements as being potential violations.

"[B]roadband providers that sought to offer pay-for-priority services would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic," the rules state. "For a number of reasons... a commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the broadband Internet access service connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e. 'pay for priority') would raise significant cause for concern. ... [A]s a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the 'no unreasonable discrimination' standard."

The Open Internet Order is being challenged in court by Verizon. A Verizon win would let ISPs block content or charge providers for a faster lane to customers. But the rule is still in place, at least until the US Court of Appeals makes a decision.

"I am a firm believer in the market," he said. “I think we’re also going to see a two-sided market where Netflix might say, ‘well, I’ll pay in order to make sure that you might receive, my subscriber receives, the best possible transmission of this movie.’ I think we want to let those kinds of things evolve. We want to observe what happens from that, and we want to make decisions accordingly, but I go back to the fact that the marketplace is where these decisions ought to be made, and the functionality of a competitive marketplace dictates the degree of regulation."

Wheeler's comment implies that he believes the Open Internet Order already allows such arrangements or that he wants to change it.

The remark came just seconds after Wheeler said, "we stand for an open Internet." He said he expects the court decision on the net neutrality rule to come this month or next month and that he hopes it will at least affirm the FCC's position that ISPs shouldn't be allowed to block content. "We're hopeful that the court will affirm the fact that reasonable means that [we can require] carriers to make sure they provide access," he said.

“ISP subscribers are not hostages to be auctioned off”

"[H]e appeared to endorse the opposite of net neutrality: allowing ISPs to charge websites and services in order to reach that ISP’s subscribers," Public Knowledge VP Michael Weinberg wrote. "In other words, giving ISPs the power to pick winners and losers online. This endorsement was all the more unexpected because it followed his explicit endorsement of 'net neutrality' and a speech that touted the FCC's role in protecting the public interest."'

Wheeler should clarify his position because his statement "could possibly be interpreted as endorsing CDNs instead of net neutrality violations," Weinberg wrote.

"ISPs should not be allowed to charge some websites or services extra just so those websites and services actually work," Weinberg continued. "ISP subscribers are not hostages to be auctioned off to Web services. There are all sorts of reasons for this but, just to pick one, in order for this type of 'fast lane' to make sense there needs to be a 'slow lane' that is bad enough to make someone like Netflix need to pay to get out of it. And just to pick two, this sort of pricing structure works to freeze out new innovation from companies that cannot afford to outbid incumbents.

Say Netflix (which, by the way, is already paying a lot to put its content on the network where you can find it) did cut such a deal with Comcast. Netflix would likely then turn around and raise the prices you pay to cover its costs. But there’s no chance Comcast would lower your monthly bill. It would just line its own pockets. So Wheeler’s vaunted “two-sided market” just means you end up paying Comcast twice.

Since the existing market for broadband and cable is already so uncompetitive, any company that wants to reach Comcast’s customers is at its mercy. And the next Netflix out there probably couldn’t afford the new tolls, so it would never have a chance to get into the new priority fast lane.

Allowing ISPs to charge for prioritization would encourage artificial scarcity, depress competition, harm online innovation, and threaten the very existence of the open Internet.

Further Reading

As we've written, consumers can already get subpar service from Netflix and YouTube when negotiations between ISPs and video services over peering and caching agreements stall. In one case, Verizon was accused of not upgrading the infrastructure required to let Netflix and other traffic pass freely to consumers' homes.

Those sorts of disagreements affect Netflix and YouTube in an indirect way. While Netflix and YouTube seem to suffer disproportionately because of the high bandwidth requirements of streaming video, peering infrastructure is used to pass all types of traffic between Internet companies. The Open Internet Order specifically excludes paid peering arrangements from its purview, but it is usually interpreted to prevent direct payments from companies like Netflix to ISPs to gain faster access to consumers. Letting ISPs directly charge Netflix (or any other company) for such access would ratchet things up to a new level.

Promoted Comments

I saw this one coming from a mile away. He said next to nothing on his positions heading into nomination, and he had already been a paid lobbyist for the groups he's now responsible to regulate. This was a bad idea all around.

Sadly I told you so just doesn't do this justice. Lets hope he isn't there long to cause too much lasting damage.

What the hell? I'm paying my ISP to deliver bits to me. I'm paying Netflix to deliver bits to me. Why the hell should Netflix also have to pay my ISP to deliver bits to me when I'm already paying both parties to deliver bits to me?

[edit]If I paid for an Uber car to take me to a restaurant, and paid the restaurant for dinner, and then Uber tried to bill the restaurant for the privilege of getting my busines, nobody would question how insane the situation was. Yet it would be exactly the same situation as the ISPs are trying to impose on companies like Netflix. But once again, because it involves computers apparently lots of people's brains turn off the moment they try to think about this.

298 Reader Comments

I wonder what Google with their Fiber service has to say on this issue. Do they the need to fuck the American public twice like Verizon and Time Warner?

No. They already participate in Netflix's program to place content delivery servers on the internal network.

I am not sure what that means. Can you please elaborate?

Do a Google search for "Netflix OpenConnect" for more info.

Basically, Netflix will give (for free) an ISP a 4U rackmount server stuffed full of RAM and disk space (SSD+HD) running FreeBSD. This box caches the most popular and most recently played videos. Thus, customers of said ISP can access Netflix streams without ever leaving the ISP network. This saves the ISP money on bandwidth, saves Netflix money on bandwidth, and provides the end-user an extremely stable/fast Netflix experience.

However, since it saves Netflix money in bandwidth charges, and provides the end-user a better experience, many ISPs don't want to sign on.

Yes, yes, slippery slope and all that, but it seems like people are jumping to conclusions. The way I interpreted the statement was that services who have an interest in a dedicated connection (Netflix, high-bandwith videoconferencing providers like in the article yesterday, etc.) would be able to buy such a dedicated, high-speed connection. In yesterday's article, we saw how the price of such a path is prohibitively high, and actually impossible in some circumstances. I didn't think he said Netflix would have to use the line, which would violate net neutrality, but rather it would just be an option.

Also, I would prefer to be judged by my own actions and not those of my previous employers. They stopped paying me, I stopped working for them. That's how it works 90% of the time.

Netflix ALREADY PAYS for that pipe. Do you know what Netflix bandwidth bill is? Do you know how the internet works? Work-for-free faeries don't show up and carry the Netflix data to you. Netflix has data centers around the world with MASSIVE pipes in to them, that Netflix pays MASSIVE money for. What is being talked about here is having to pay the upstream provider for access to the consumer.

Cable companies want to double dip, period, and you're the uninformed consumer that would let them.

Oh, internet isn't a magical service that is carried to everyone, free of charge? What? If you want a better rate, you need to pay more? Wow! Thank you for informing me! I obviously had no idea what I was talking about!

I've heard stupid people like car analogies, so here's one. I pay money for a car. In terms of my other expenses, it's a MASSIVE expense. Here's the thing though, it's got a shitty engine. Now, granted, it's a MASSIVE increase over my current walking speed, but I want the ability to go over 96. If I go back to GM and trade my old Dodge Dart for a Corvette that can hit 140 easy, is GM double-dipping? Am I expecting magical speed faeries to come and push my car? Or am I making a calculated decision to raise my already MASSIVE expenses because it benefits me?

You act like you actually understand, but your comments make it seem like you don't. Here is a better car analogy:

You buy a car from GM, and you have to put gas into it for it to run. Not only do YOU pay for the right to put gas into it, GM is now going to start charging the gas station for the right for you to put gas into it! If I hosted a website at home (for personal or business use), I have to pay x amount of money for an internet connection, and it allows me to both upload AND download, not just one. Netflix pays millions upon millions of dollars a year for the data pipes that they use to connect to the internet, and if Netflix is forced to pay to send data, then you are basically paying for your ISP service twice, because Netflix would have to increase their rates to be able to account for having to pay for their internet connection twice. And, if Netflix can be forced to have to pay for you to receive the content they send, then ANYONE who hosts data of any sort can be charged as well, which completely defeats the entire intent of the internet.

See, I understand that completely, I just don't think that's in play here. Rereading the article, it gets confusing, but I think this is the main quote, with the chairman speaking as Netflix:

"well, I’ll pay in order to make sure that you might receive, my subscriber receives, the best possible transmission of this movie."

Assuming he's not speaking in a mafia style, the way I interpreted this was an endorsement of a dedicated, high-bandwith line that would help Netflix work better in areas where it's currently congested. Netflix would have to pay a premium for the service. I think you missed my original point, it's probably downvoted into oblivion by now, but Brainling saw it, drew a different conclusion from the article (the same one you drew) and decided to be an asshole about it.

Really, I'm with Public Knowledge. I want to see some clarification for this. If a net neutrality advocacy group doesn't outright condemn the statement, there's obviously some misinterpretation going on in here.

EDIT: Oh, I see where we differ. If they do get this line, they wouldn't have to pay Prior bandwith + dedicated line. If they did, that's a clear violation, but again, I didn't get that idea from the quote.

Netflix has already offered their CDN caches to ISPs which would serve the same function of "helping netflix work better in areas where it's currently congested." It just wouldn't serve the function of allowing ISPs to price gouge and act anti-competitively against services like... Netflix.

See, I understand that completely, I just don't think that's in play here. Rereading the article, it gets confusing, but I think this is the main quote, with the chairman speaking as Netflix:

"well, I’ll pay in order to make sure that you might receive, my subscriber receives, the best possible transmission of this movie."

Assuming he's not speaking in a mafia style, the way I interpreted this was an endorsement of a dedicated, high-bandwith line that would help Netflix work better in areas where it's currently congested. Netflix would have to pay a premium for the service. I think you missed my original point, it's probably downvoted into oblivion by now, but Brainling saw it, drew a different conclusion from the article (the same one you drew) and decided to be an asshole about it.

Except that Netflix already has a solution for this (OpenConnect). But, since it saves Netflix money in bandwidth charges to the ISP, many ISPs don't want to sign on.

If you don't like this, contact your congressmen/women. They do actually listen to voters who bother to reach out.

I wish that was my experience.

Have you actually bothered trying? Campaign contributions from lobbyists are used to get votes. Appeasing voters directly is a much more effective way to get votes. Unless your congressmen are complete nutjobs who think they are appointed by $diety, they will listen.

We, as a country, seem to be under the assumption that the only involvement we can have in the governing process is voting. That's not the case. If we made as much noise as the lobbyists, we'd be heard.

Edit: I noticed that you elaborated on your post. Your congressman may very well think he was appointed by $diety. I guess I'm fortunate to be in New York, where there is some semblance of sanity.

I know other people have made similar comments, but here is my 2cents worth.

We are already paying for the connection to the internet, and in some cases (like Netflix) paying for the content that we are trying to access. Why should there be an additional charge, whether it is to the consumer or to the company (passed on to the customer again) providing the content?

Let's paint a picture. Your house is connected to the city's water supply, for which you already pay a monthly fee (water bill). You "rent" a water hose to use to water your lawn, but then are told that you will have to pay more to use the hose depending on where the water is coming from. You can get water for no charge from the owner of the hose, or you can pay an extra fee to access the city's water. Does that make sense?

The only reason the ISPs are for this is because they are trying to offer competing services that are not able to keep up with the other offerings that their customers are already using. So they want to restrict access to those services, or at least get a piece of the pie when all they are is just the hose that we are connecting to other sources. I wish there was more competition among the ISPs so that we could truly vote with our wallets and tell these companies that we don't agree with their business practices, but they have stifled or flat out killed competition. Now they can start adding crap fees to their customers' bills, getting more income without adding any new service or value to the product that they are offering, and the customer is basically stuck with it because there is no where else to go.

I almost want this to happen. Because IF Netflix pays they can do the following:

1) Demand their traffic not be counted in monthly data transfer calculations.2) Demand their traffic will not be throttled.

While this would mean Netflix's price increases, if the result is better service because of it, I would be happy to pay them so they can pay for these gurantees

No and No.

They didn't say anything about not counting the traffic and they didn't say anything about throttling. What would most likely happen given how they currently treat people.They will charge the customerThey will charge netflixThey will still count the data against the monthly capThey may not throttle the netflix stream.

So... I am paying my ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth which they advertise. If I choose to use the entirety of that bandwidth for Netflix, I cannot use it for anything else. It's unclear how anyone can argue that ISPs should be paid more to provide exactly what they are currently contracted to be providing.

Am I not entitled to the full bandwidth that they claim I've purchased?

I honestly don't see why Time-Warner shouldn't get a percentage of sales from companies that do business over there infrastructure. If the ISPs have to carry the burden of Cyber-Monday sales traffic, why shouldn't they share in the rewards as well?!

I cannot believe there are people who do not get this... I am already paying for that Cyber-Monday traffic! We already pay for a certain amount of mbps and gigabytes per month (whatever it may be). By charging Amazon more to use the extra bandwidth on Cyber-Monday (which will be passed on to us - Capitalism) they are double-billing! They already charge us for that.

In a real free market, ISPs would be trying to give netflix a faster lane in order to attract customers. If pricing was competitive and there were multiple providers, like there should be, decent access to steam downloads and netflix would be what I'd look for in an ISP.

Trying to claim it's what the market needs when the market is completely ruined is complete bullshit.

In a real free market cable providers wold not be able to make deals with cities to be the sole provider of service. Netflix is in a very grey area. Their business model has them depending on the "generosity" of ISP's who can very easily throttle their traffic. I would like to see more communities banding together to create their own ISP's and cable services to compete with the big boys. We don't have much choice right now and I expect some collusion when it comes to pricing in the very few areas where people do have a "choice."

I wonder what Google with their Fiber service has to say on this issue. Do they the need to fuck the American public twice like Verizon and Time Warner?

No. They already participate in Netflix's program to place content delivery servers on the internal network.

I am not sure what that means. Can you please elaborate?

Do a Google search for "Netflix OpenConnect" for more info.

Basically, Netflix will give (for free) an ISP a 4U rackmount server stuffed full of RAM and disk space (SSD+HD) running FreeBSD. This box caches the most popular and most recently played videos. Thus, customers of said ISP can access Netflix streams without ever leaving the ISP network. This saves the ISP money on bandwidth, saves Netflix money on bandwidth, and provides the end-user an extremely stable/fast Netflix experience.

However, since it saves Netflix money in bandwidth charges, and provides the end-user a better experience, many ISPs don't want to sign on.

Instead of a lot of "I told you so" posts, what's a good action a citizen can take to fight this? Write congress? Write the FCC ? Let's try to fix this. Fatalism be dammed.

This needs to be repeated. I fall into the angry nerd raging on a niche website trap, too, but all that does is raise my blood pressure a little. This is serious stuff that affects all of us. What can be done? How do we get the word out to people and motivate them to take action?

So... I am paying my ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth which they advertise. If I choose to use the entirety of that bandwidth for Netflix, I cannot use it for anything else. It's unclear how anyone can argue that ISPs should be paid more to provide exactly what they are currently contracted to be providing.

Am I not entitled to the full bandwidth that they claim I've purchased?

That's what I'm confused about... I stream HDTV just fine... my internet isn't spectacular, but I accept the fact that I cannot stream 10 HD shows at once... nor can I stream 1 or 2 at once while also downloading a 600MB file in less than a minute...

All this talk of special high-speed routes just screams anti-net-neutrality to me.

It's simple: ISP specifies price and bandwidth (and god-forbid, cap)... I decide to pay for it or not.

You know living in America I kinda hope this goes through. And then Netflix/etc all stop servicing America. Maybe then the non-tech people will start caring about network neutrality.

No, these companies will pass the cost on to the consumer, who will grumble somewhat, and then pay up because a) they have no choice in providers or telecomm, and b) they certainly will not exercise their ability to stop consuming the service because people are slaves to/for entertainment at any price. Further, because of a) even if they did b), the Comcasts and their ilk would love for Netflix to go under so they can go back to being the sole provider of everything like the good 'ol days of cable tv.

This is yet another example of how we do not live in a nation of laws, but a plutocracy where the rules of the game are established by the most wealthy / powerful. You are nothing but a cow to be milked, a sheep to be shorn for profit. You'll work your little job, and you'll you'll buy like a good consumer, and you'll do as you are told. So long as you comply, you are "free" to waste your brain and body on shit media and shit food.

The alternative is to not participate in the whole charade, make as much of a life outside the system as you can, and subvert that system every chance you get, because the powers that be surely are.

The choice is yours.

Yeah, but who wants to live like that? Subverting the system is just as much denying yourself pleasure needlessly as being subject to it is enslaving yourself. There really does have to be a happy medium.

I'm a huge supporter and very long time customer of Netflix. (Seriously, when I joined their service they charged me late fees.)

I like the Openconnect CDN boxes that they've put out. However, I think its a bit naive of them to expect that they should get ports, power, space, some network admin from the ISPs for free. Yes, this does save the ISPs a bit when they peer with other networks, but from the ISP's perspective its an increase in costs, with little direct benefit for them.

What I do think is that ISPs should have to provide:a) connectivity to all Autonomous Systems (AS) on the internet. Such that, during peak times a website will load without timing out.b) a tariffed, regulated, service that provides direct access to X thousand customers. This'd include the rack space, an internet port, electricity, appropriate service from the NOCs, and reasonable margin above costs, say 10%.

Part A would ensure that all the internet is accessible. Part B would allow Netflix, Limelight, Akamai, and other CDNs to provide improved service. This helps shift costs a bit toward the direction they belong, without making my grandmother pay for my streaming video via a more expensive internet connection because she only wants to check email and little flash games.

Instead of a lot of "I told you so" posts, what's a good action a citizen can take to fight this? Write congress? Write the FCC ? Let's try to fix this. Fatalism be dammed.

This needs to be repeated. I fall into the angry nerd raging on a niche website trap, too, but all that does is raise my blood pressure a little. This is serious stuff that affects all of us. What can be done? How do we get the word out to people and motivate them to take action?

In other news, you can only drive on the expressway when using Exxon(tm) brand gasoline, and Sunny Hills Farms has struck an exclusive deal with General Mills, if you attempt to use any other brand of milk on your cereal, toxic chemicals will form and make your breath smell really, really bad.

I honestly don't see why Time-Warner shouldn't get a percentage of sales from companies that do business over there infrastructure. If the ISPs have to carry the burden of Cyber-Monday sales traffic, why shouldn't they share in the rewards as well?!

They do get a cut. Any website is already paying for internet. Why should netflix who already pays for internet have to pay comcast in order for you who is also already paying for internet to watch netflix. Its as bad as MS charging people to use netflix on XBox. In fact it is worse since at least in that case MS made the hardware.

I wonder what Google with their Fiber service has to say on this issue. Do they the need to fuck the American public twice like Verizon and Time Warner?

No. They already participate in Netflix's program to place content delivery servers on the internal network.

I am not sure what that means. Can you please elaborate?

Do a Google search for "Netflix OpenConnect" for more info.

Basically, Netflix will give (for free) an ISP a 4U rackmount server stuffed full of RAM and disk space (SSD+HD) running FreeBSD. This box caches the most popular and most recently played videos. Thus, customers of said ISP can access Netflix streams without ever leaving the ISP network. This saves the ISP money on bandwidth, saves Netflix money on bandwidth, and provides the end-user an extremely stable/fast Netflix experience.

However, since it saves Netflix money in bandwidth charges, and provides the end-user a better experience, many ISPs don't want to sign on.

Imagine if a web site were to charge ISPs to "carry" it. The ISPs would tell the web site to go fuck itself. That's because there are millions of web sites and each can be replaced - sometimes with some effort, but if a large web site were to shut off a significant fraction of potential users, you can bet a replacement would emerge. Competition and low barrier to entry, which go hand in hand with each other, prevent that problem. Similarly, if there were dozens of ISPs available in each area, no ISP would have the clout to demand money from companies for the ISP to carry their information. We can't trust a bunch of industry insiders in the government to keep ISPs honest. We need more competition.

I don't know of any other sites that do this, but Watch ESPN (http://espn.go.com/watchespn/index) has deals with specific ISPs and only subscribers of those ISPs can watch. It's ridiculously stupid and annoying.

Instead of a lot of "I told you so" posts, what's a good action a citizen can take to fight this? Write congress? Write the FCC ? Let's try to fix this. Fatalism be dammed.

This needs to be repeated. I fall into the angry nerd raging on a niche website trap, too, but all that does is raise my blood pressure a little. This is serious stuff that affects all of us. What can be done? How do we get the word out to people and motivate them to take action?

So... I am paying my ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth which they advertise. If I choose to use the entirety of that bandwidth for Netflix, I cannot use it for anything else. It's unclear how anyone can argue that ISPs should be paid more to provide exactly what they are currently contracted to be providing.

Am I not entitled to the full bandwidth that they claim I've purchased?

You haven't read the fine print which I know when it comes to bandwidth provisioning on Verizon FiOS excludes online video services. This is why we need strong consumer protections, these fine prints are getting ridiculously long and don't cover just edge cases.

I wonder what Google with their Fiber service has to say on this issue. Do they the need to fuck the American public twice like Verizon and Time Warner?

No. They already participate in Netflix's program to place content delivery servers on the internal network.

I am not sure what that means. Can you please elaborate?

Do a Google search for "Netflix OpenConnect" for more info.

Basically, Netflix will give (for free) an ISP a 4U rackmount server stuffed full of RAM and disk space (SSD+HD) running FreeBSD. This box caches the most popular and most recently played videos. Thus, customers of said ISP can access Netflix streams without ever leaving the ISP network. This saves the ISP money on bandwidth, saves Netflix money on bandwidth, and provides the end-user an extremely stable/fast Netflix experience.

However, since it saves Netflix money in bandwidth charges, and provides the end-user a better experience, many ISPs don't want to sign on.

Yes, yes, slippery slope and all that, but it seems like people are jumping to conclusions. The way I interpreted the statement was that services who have an interest in a dedicated connection (Netflix, high-bandwith videoconferencing providers like in the article yesterday, etc.) would be able to buy such a dedicated, high-speed connection.

I have mid-grade internet speeds, and I can watch HDTV with ease, more than one at once... to me it seems there is no excuse for charging netflix or any other streaming service for delivering their content at the speeds of other traffic.

Is this all about 4k quality? Being able to have a household of 6, all streaming their own HDTV? I don't get it.

I think you missed my point. If Netflix doesn't need to pay for the dedicated line, they won't. Their traffic will be in with everyone else's. In your use case, that's sufficient, and Netflix won't pay for that line. Now the real questions are:1. Will netflix be forced to pay extra, even if current service works for them (according to their own internal definitions, i.e. it's their choice to pay)?2. Will the FCC allow ISPs to throttle Netflix traffic if they don't pay for the line.

If the answer to either question is yes, then we have a serious issue, but in my opinion, it's a bit early to be calling "schill."

Sooo.... You're thinking of the use case where, say, a city doesn't have the bandwidth to stream netflix, but the ISP that serves that city will sit down with netflix, come up with a pricing scheme whereby netflix will pay more and the ISP will support netflix's traffic?

If not, I'm not sure what you're arguing for... if so, this is still blatantly anti-net-neutrality, almost the definition in fact. A select few paying so their traffic will make it... every other high-bandwidth website is out of luck. That's what everyone is worried about - lack of neutrality in the delivery of content.

Wheeler is bs idiot seemingly hellbent on ruining twenty plus years of agonizing work by hundreds of thousands of people.

The foundation of Internet access has been from day one (I opened an ISP in 1993) is that your customers pay you for access to the Internet. That is it. If you can't survive in that world get out. Destroying net neutrality or even bastardizing it in any way is the worst possible solution.

Ad hoc wireless networks, legal or illegal, will eventually circumvent the traditional companies while they sit there with their billion dollar fiber build outs between their legs.

I honestly don't see why Time-Warner shouldn't get a percentage of sales from companies that do business over there infrastructure. If the ISPs have to carry the burden of Cyber-Monday sales traffic, why shouldn't they share in the rewards as well?!

The Department of Transportation doesn't get a cut from UPS, FedEx, or other companies that ship with their own fleets since those trucks use the highway. Why should ISPs get a cut for companies using the "virtual highway?" I pay my license and registration fees every year and manufacturers certify their cars with the DoT. I'm paying my ISP and Netflix is paying their ISP. Those ISPs need to renegotiate their peering agreement not double dip. For example, I pay for a taxi to take me to a restaurant and then pay the restaurant for dinner. If the cab driver tried to bill the restaurant for the privilege of getting my business, nobody would question how insane the situation was. Yet it would be exactly the same situation as the ISPs are trying to impose on companies like Netflix.